5.5e

[HolyDraconus]

Personally, I feel the time is right for a slight upgrade that "fixes" a few things, like 3.5 did for 3. With them becoming far wiser it would be a wonderful opportunity to update some source material with current errata but the main reason I feel this way is because of Adventure League: there's core issues that need reworking to better facilitate organized play. Plus with how subclasses have panned out it would also give them another chance to update both main classes as well as older subclasses so they all fall inline: power creep has been mounting pretty rapidly. It would also give a chance to update some rules clarification in a more official manner than twitter. So what do you all think?

[Waazraath]

Personally, I feel the time is right for a slight upgrade that "fixes" a few things, like 3.5 did for 3. With them becoming far wiser it would be a wonderful opportunity to update some source material with current errata but the main reason I feel this way is because of Adventure League: there's core issues that need reworking to better facilitate organized play. Plus with how subclasses have panned out it would also give them another chance to update both main classes as well as older subclasses so they all fall inline: power creep has been mounting pretty rapidly. It would also give a chance to update some rules clarification in a more official manner than twitter. So what do you all think?

3.5 really was a new edition. 3.0 books were despite the '3.5' name no longer useable and had to be replaced. I really don't need another .5 edition, since I'm happy with it as it is.

a 5.5 I can't see purchasing. In 5 years or so a 6e, that fixes the stuff we know by now are weaker points in 5e (as far as there's any consensus on those), I'd consider if it really is an improvement.

[HolyDraconus]

3.5 really was a new edition. 3.0 books were despite the '3.5' name no longer useable and had to be replaced. I really don't need another .5 edition, since I'm happy with it as it is.

a 5.5 I can't see purchasing. In 5 years or so a 6e, that fixes the stuff we know by now are weaker points in 5e (as far as there's any consensus on those), I'd consider if it really is an improvement.

You could still use 3.0 in 3.5 though, like the fullblade for example. And since every edition has been sharply different from the others why would you want a 6e when a 5.5 would do what it is you ask?

[Deathtongue]

Considering the rage and angst calling D&D Essentials 4.5E called, there's no way they will call it 5.5e.

That said, I don't see the impetus for a D&D 5.5E D&D. The errata, even proposed errata, isn't enough to fill a chapter of a book. Hell, there isn't enough PC-only rules material to fill a new PHB. And I don't think most people are clamoring for changes to the basic assumptions of the game like Bounded Accuracy or You Can't Always Craft/Purchase Magic Items. So... what's the point? If they want to draw in new players, why not advertise on D&D-sympathetic channels like Penny Arcade or put out more D&D-based media like Critical Role? If they want to get repeat purchases from older players, why not instead of a new version they just release more sourcebooks?

[heavyfuel]

3.5 really was a new edition. 3.0 books were despite the '3.5' name no longer useable and had to be replaced.

This is absolutely not true. Pretty much everything from 3.0 can be used in 3.5 with very minor adaptations. Adaptations that are even suggested in the 3.5 DMG (if my memory serves me correctly)

Most classes, feats, spells, magic items can all be used with no alteration. Monsters only require a little alteration if the have Damage Reduction.

[Dienekes]

Kinda agree with Deathtongue here.

Which isn’t to say I don’t think there are a lot of things I think are wrong with the edition. There’s plenty. But 5e is still incredibly popular. And the issues I think are wrong with it are partially fiddly balance things that the average player won’t care about. And partially issues I have with the base design that are my personal opinions.

That said do I want a 5.5 that fixes these issues? Most certainly.

[LibraryOgre]

And since every edition has been sharply different from the others why would you want a 6e when a 5.5 would do what it is you ask?

Look, AD&D 2nd edition wasn't even sharply different from oD&D, much less AD&D 1e (or 1.5, with the inclusion of UA). I can literally take adventures designed for any of those editions and start playing in any of the other editions without any modification (though, as levels rise, the differences become a bit more distinct). 3e was different from 2e, 3.5 was more different from 3e than 2e was from 1e, 4e was pretty much David S. Pumpkins, and then 5e was different from 4e, sharing a bit from several previous editions.

It somewhat depends on what you want from your half edition. Unearthed Arcana (the original) added new classes, spells, and rules, but was the same game. 3.5 had the same basic engine, but they changed so much that it wound up being pretty much a new game.

[JackPhoenix]

5.5.... or 6e, for that matter.... isn't happening until 5e loses popularity enough for a new ruleset to have a chance at market. I don't see that happening anytime soon, and definitely not just in order to put SAC into a book so a bunch of nerds on few internet forums can stop arguing about the stuff that's intentionally ambiguous.

[Christew]

Let us look to the past in order to augur the future.
Timeline
D&D 1974 (3 Years)
AD&D 1977 (12 Years)
2E 1989 (11 Years)
3E 2000 (8 Years)
3.5E 2003 [5 Years]
4E 2008 ( 6 Years)
5E 2014 (6+ Years)

Analysis
A) Ignoring the first and last iteration, we see a shrinking lifespan for each subsequent edition (AD&D - 4E).
B) Grouping the editions into Early (D&D - 2E) and Modern (3E - 5E) yield average lifespans of 8.7 and 6.7 years respectively.
C) Reworks (AD&D and 3.5E) have longer lifespans than their progenitors (D&D and 3E).
D) The player base has expanded over time.
E) New editions tend to come in the wake of sales dips.

Conclusions
- 5E is anomalous and truly represents a revolution for Dungeons and Dragons. There are more players and more consistent sales than ever before. It is thus not surprising that 5E breaks the decaying orbit of edition lifespans.
- If we posit a 5.5E and look to analysis point C, we can assume that 5.5E would have a minimum longevity of 5E+1 years. Given that 5.5E has not been announced, it is reasonable to think that it would take a year or more to develop. That would give 5E (including 5.5) a predicted longevity of 13 years if 5.5 came out tomorrow and 15 years with a 2021 publication. That meets the max longevity of 15 years (D&D and AD&D).
- Sales are still strong for 5E. Given it's extent longevity and sales, it is more likely to see a 6E in several years than a 5.5E. Why invest in doing a .5 when it will require a certain longevity to make it worth doing and will prevent the reworking of underlying mechanics in a novel way that a new edition would allow?
- I would posit that 5E represents a shift to Postmodern D&D and will be the start point of a new era of editions that share a common landscape (i.e. ebooks and eplay).


You could still use 3.0 in 3.5 though, like the fullblade for example. And since every edition has been sharply different from the others why would you want a 6e when a 5.5 would do what it is you ask?
You can still use any edition you want today, provided you can find the players/DM. Why would I want a 5.5 when a 6e could provide completely new and interesting mechanics and balance while also fixing some problems from 5e? Since we are more than five years in, I would rather spend money on something new than on tweaks that I can accomplish at my own table with house rules.

Let 5e continue for some years (still lots of untapped publication potential) then give us an excitingly novel 6e.

[Pex]

There was the Unearthed Arcana that offered new class features to add to or swap with what existed. There exists subclasses. They're working on something. It could be 5.5E. It could instead be another sourcebook like Xanathar. 5E is not absolutely perfect in every way. There's room for an update. I don't expect to get all the changes I specifically want and will expect a few I won't like at all. I do have hopes there will be some changes and add-ons I will like and am looking forward to it.

[Willie the Duck]

Let us look to the past in order to augur the future.
Timeline
D&D 1974 (3 Years)
AD&D 1977 (12 Years)
2E 1989 (11 Years)
3E 2000 (8 Years)
3.5E 2003 [5 Years]
4E 2008 ( 6 Years)
5E 2014 (6+ Years)

Analysis
A) Ignoring the first and last iteration, we see a shrinking lifespan for each subsequent edition (AD&D - 4E).

This analysis leaves out the Advanced-Basic/Classic split. Also that AD&D had a 3 year rollout.

But honestly, if we are looking at massive changes in the game, the biggest split is between oD&D (1974) and oD&D with the supplements (75-76).

[Keravath]

The biggest argument against 5.5e or 6e at the moment is that there isn't anything terribly wrong with the rules. Previous editions by this point in their lifecycle had typically published a number of significant power creep splat books which when combined with the greater base system complexity made the game less accessible.

AD&D through to 3.5e was typically a trend towards increased complexity, more rules, more differentiation along with some streamlining like moving to d20 vs THAC0. 4e was almost a complete re-write. At will abilities, daily abilities, encounter abilities ... it took D&D in a completely different direction (though one presumably much easier to adapt to a video game format) ... however, although some folks really liked 4e, it didn't catch on that much and many long time D&D players either stuck with earlier editions or transitioned to Pathfinder. The completely open rules approach in 3.5e made it extremely easy for competitors to take advantage of the freely available rules and create their own content. I think 4e and I know 5e moved away from this model with a stripped down SRD and a lot of the options only officially available through the players handbook and other sources.

Anyway, along comes 5e with concepts like bounded accuracy, vastly improved class balance (in my opinion) all the way from level 1 through at least the mid-teens if not all the way to 20 (I haven't played much Tier4), while also re-capturing most if not all of the "feel" of the early editions (certainly AD&D and 2e in my opinion). 5e is more accessible, simpler systems all relying on a d20 roll - three types of checks - attack rolls, saves, ability checks. Complexity comes in the character archetypes and abilities but then the player can choose which they want to play AND can just learn the bits and pieces about their character's mechanics.

Yes there are bits and pieces of ambiguity in 5e that we who visit these forums love to argue about ... but for the majority of players (in my opinion/experience) these don't matter. They play, they have fun, the DM adjudicates the "rules" .. many players won't ever realize if the DM even makes a mistake.

So .. why do we need a new version of the game? Power creep so far has been relatively low compared to the splat books from previous versions. Basically, the system is not in need of a reset and due to the accessibility of 5e it is probably more popular than ever. I'd love to see some clarifications, perhaps a couple of areas with enhanced rules or guidance, a better definition of cover for spells, some clarification of stealth, hiding, surprise and the intended use of passive skills. However, none of these are big issues and a DM can just choose to run them how they want to ... however, these are ambiguous enough that a new DM doesn't necessarily understand how they could run them when they first read them and for me that is the biggest issue.

The rules should be clear enough for a new DM to understand how to play the mechanic while at the same time giving an experienced DM the opportunity to innovate. 5e does a pretty good job on leaving some things open which works fine for experienced DMs but then leaves a new DM floundering until they come up with how they want to run it. Instead the rules should set out a bit more clearly for these ambiguous cases what the rules actually are while still allowing the DM some leeway.

A 5.5e wouldn't change the core aspects of 5e but I think it would enhance certain sections of the rules so that they make more sense and are easier for new DMs to navigate.

P.S. Another example is lightly vs heavily obscured when applied to natural and magical darkness vs obscuration caused by fog, undergrowth and other cases. It only needs a paragraph or two to make this entire thing clear and succinct but instead new DMs are left wondering if natural darkness blocks vision because it is heavily obscured .. or since that doesn't make any sense in real life unless everywhere is also dark then how does it work? Except they also apply the same wording to be heavily obscured by undergrowth - so can you see through 50' of undergrowth to see a clearing? Again, common sense says no ... but honestly, they should just clarify the rules a bit to make sure that they clearly and concisely say what they are looking for even if it takes an extra paragraph or two.

[Millstone85]

It would also give a chance to update some rules clarification in a more official manner than twitter.There is already a more official manner: the Sage Advice Compendium.

[Garfunion]

My opinion is that with the recent UA that provided additions or replacements class abilities. They will probably be releasing some kind of advanced players guide, which would allow you to incorporate them or ignore them in accordance with the Adventurers League players handbook +1.

As such there would be no need for a 5.5 for this edition.

[WaroftheCrans]

On the note of the average lifetime:
oD&D 1974 (3 Years) - Outlier due to it being the first.
AD&D 1977 (12 Years)
2E 1989 (11 Years)
3E 2000 (8 Years) }
3.5E 2003 [5 Years] } 14 years of 3rd edition, including the update, and the 6 years afterwards that it continued to be the mainstay of D&D players.
4E 2008 ( 6 Years) - Outlier due to how universally reviled it was.
5E 2014 (6+ Years) - Expected to go on for 5-10 more years, perhaps receiving a .5 within 3-4 years.

I think the trend is between 10-15 years for each edition, and 5e might be unusually long lived. 3.5 was still a part of 3.x, and 4e was just a disaster for WotC, and the playerbase continued to play 3.5.

Note: This was edited because I was very tired when I first posted it.

[LibraryOgre]

On the note of the average lifetime:
oD&D 1974 (3 Years) - Outlier due to it being the first.
AD&D 1977 (12 Years)
2E 1989 (11 Years)
3E 2000 (8 Years) }
3.5E 2003 [5 Years] } 13 years of 3rd edition, including the update
4E 2008 ( 6 Years) - Outlier due to how universally reviled it was.
5E 2014 (6+ Years) - Expected to go on for 5-10 more years, perhaps receiving a .5 within 3-4 years.

I think the trend is between 10-15 years for each edition, and 5e might be unusually long lived. 3.5 was still a part of 3.x, and 4e was just a disaster for WotC.

I'd also note the oD&D had its own editions, and didn't end with the advent of AD&D. BECMI was released about the time as 1e, and the Rules Cyclopedia continued into the 2e era.

[DarknessEternal]

You are the arbiter of your own entertainment.

You get to decide what the rules are for your D&D.

You don't need WotC to decide that for you.

[Christew]

On the note of the average lifetime:
oD&D 1974 (3 Years) - Outlier due to it being the first.
AD&D 1977 (12 Years)
2E 1989 (11 Years)
3E 2000 (8 Years) }
3.5E 2003 [5 Years] } 13 years of 3rd edition, including the update
4E 2008 ( 6 Years) - Outlier due to how universally reviled it was.
5E 2014 (6+ Years) - Expected to go on for 5-10 more years, perhaps receiving a .5 within 3-4 years.

I think the trend is between 10-15 years for each edition, and 5e might be unusually long lived. 3.5 was still a part of 3.x, and 4e was just a disaster for WotC.
The 8 years for 3E includes 3.5E. 2000-2003 (3) and 2003-2008 (5) is 8 years of 3E before 4E was released, not 13.

[RSP]

WotC would be ruining the mass appeal they live gained in 5e by creating a new edition now. New players who just came onboard aren’t going to want an overhaul of rules in their new hobby.

Popularity and sales will have to tank before 6e is a thing.

Whether or not it holds true, I think Mearls said something along the lines of any future editions being backwards compatible with 5e.

I wouldn’t be horribly surprised if more variant rules got published, like extended equipment lists, or even a modular “build your own class” pick-your-ability variant rule; but I don’t think they touch the base system for a while yet: they can continue building off 5e with untapped areas like new setting (Dark Sun) and abilities (Psionic) for quite a while still.

[Deathtongue]

4E D&D probably scared the pants off of anyone wanting to do anything significantly different with the edition. If the CEO of Hasbro offered a 5-million dollar bounty for the person who wrote the best 6th-edition rules set in two years, it's not going to look very different from 5E D&D. And because it's been 6 years and 5E D&D hasn't released as many books as 2E, 3E, or 4E did in their first two years, there's no impetus for people to reboot the edition. There might be some aesthetic incentive, sure, but that's done through D&D-adjacent media like Critical Role and maybe a hit new movie or video game. Not with a new edition.

That said, if 6E D&D really wanted to capture a new market -- not just that of nerds who've read Harry Potter fanfiction and played Final Fantasy -- but of people like my mom who watched a couple of seasons of Three Kingdoms a decade ago and my stepbrother who hasn't played a video game more complex than Angry Birds in a similar time frame but really liked Ninja Gaiden 3 when it came out, they really would have to completely upend the edition because 5E wouldn't be sufficient. Whether that's a worthwhile endeavor is to be seen.

[HolyDraconus]

There is already a more official manner: the Sage Advice Compendium. Explain that at most AL stores.


This is absolutely not true. Pretty much everything from 3.0 can be used in 3.5 with very minor adaptations. Adaptations that are even suggested in the 3.5 DMG (if my memory serves me correctly)

Most classes, feats, spells, magic items can all be used with no alteration. Monsters only require a little alteration if the have Damage Reduction. Pretty much this.


Considering the rage and angst calling D&D Essentials 4.5E called, there's no way they will call it 5.5e.

That said, I don't see the impetus for a D&D 5.5E D&D. The errata, even proposed errata, isn't enough to fill a chapter of a book. Hell, there isn't enough PC-only rules material to fill a new PHB. And I don't think most people are clamoring for changes to the basic assumptions of the game like Bounded Accuracy or You Can't Always Craft/Purchase Magic Items. So... what's the point? If they want to draw in new players, why not advertise on D&D-sympathetic channels like Penny Arcade or put out more D&D-based media like Critical Role? If they want to get repeat purchases from older players, why not instead of a new version they just release more sourcebooks?
Its not for just players: Dms can use some clarifications and additional tools. It also does things like rework Hexblade, if needed, or Ranger, if needed. Have you played a game past 16 in 5e? Regardless of how good your DM is, there's no changing the feeling that the game is over. As for crafting magic items? Show me where you can in AL. Because of how organized play is done this time around some changes like that would need to be placed in writing in some form before it can pass to other players and dms.

You are the arbiter of your own entertainment.

You get to decide what the rules are for your D&D.

You don't need WotC to decide that for you.
You do not play AL.

[Deathtongue]

Its not for just players: Dms can use some clarifications and additional tools. It also does things like rework Hexblade, if needed, or Ranger, if needed. Have you played a game past 16 in 5e? Regardless of how good your DM is, there's no changing the feeling that the game is over. As for crafting magic items? Show me where you can in AL. Because of how organized play is done this time around some changes like that would need to be placed in writing in some form before it can pass to other players and dms.AL DMs just use Sage's Advice and Errata. They don't need an entire new book, let alone an entire new edition. I have bad memories of people loathing and mocking 4E's Rule Compendium, so I need a good reason to feel good about WotC going down that road.

Also, there's a reason why you can't craft magic items in AL. AL Magic Item rules are already absurdly generous, even in Season 9, there's no reason to have additional assurance that your level 12 mage can get a Staff of the Magi. I can understand a complete overhaul of the magical item system, but we don't need to make magical items even easier for players to acquire. I've never felt deprived in home games or AL.


You do not play AL.This wasn't addressed to be, but I haven't played the previous season of AL, partly because my job took me away from my hometown during the weekday, partly because of COVID-19, and also partly because this season didn't catch my interest like Tomb of Annihilation/TftYP/Dragonheist/DotMM did. I have played Seasons 6, 7, and 8 from start to finish. I've also played full campaigns of Out of the Abyss, Curse of Strahd, and Rise of Tiamat under AL rules retroactively.

I have never played an AL game past level 16. Tier 4 tables are too hard to organize even in big cities and I refuse to play AL over the Internet. I've played a handful of home games over Roll20 past level 16, that largely but not completely use non-Magic Item/Book +1 AL rules.

Why am I telling you all this? It's because I don't really feel like the game is stale enough to need a substantial revision. A couple of new sourcebooks and some errata? Definitely. Maybe even an alternate campaign rulesset like d20 Modern? Certainly. But a new half-edition like 3.5E or Essentials? No way.

[MoiMagnus]

If it needs anything to "solve problems", that's probably a DMG2 that guide DMs toward additional rules adapted to their playstyle.

Some of the UA already have rules for a lot of things I'd expect from a DMG2 (large scale battles, NPC classes, ...).

Though there are still few points that, up to my knowledge (I've not read all the UA) are not treated. For example "create you own boss battle" is not something easy for new DMs. That's an easy trap to fall into to underestimate the capacity of PCs to stun / hold person / counterspell your boss into uselessness. Additional tools (there are already legendary resistances) would really be welcome for new DMs.

[They could also add the SA compendium at the end of this DMG2]

[Nifft]

There are so few 5e books.

This is not a publication-heavy edition like 3e or even 2e.

I'd be fine with a better 5.5e which fixes all my issues with regular 5e, and I'd happily pay for 3 new core books right now in order to get it.

[WaroftheCrans]

The 8 years for 3E includes 3.5E. 2000-2003 (3) and 2003-2008 (5) is 8 years of 3E before 4E was released, not 13.

Am blind/tired, but I will rationalize this and edit my original.

[Sigreid]

I'm not interested in buying a .5 edition, particularly one that is released primarily to make things better for AL. I most likely wouldn't buy it and it would stop be buying ongoing supplements.

[Christew]

Am blind/tired, but I will rationalize this and edit my original.
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I think you are right that 4e is a bit of a negative outlier. Arguably another reason for the success of 5e: 3/3.5 being too stale at a decade and a half and 4e being unloved creates significant potential energy behind the new edition.

I actually appreciate the slow publication schedule and think that is part of what gives 5e legs.
Do I want more material? Of course.
Do I want 5.5e? Not really. Errata and Unearthed Arcana do enough to keep the system writ large on track. I'll be happy with setting and player option expansions for another 3-5 years easy.

I do think that 5e has more of a risk of interest stagnation because of the broadening player set. Where early editions needed to expand the base to drive sales, 5e needs to hold the interest of those they've already sold to. There is a healthier non-D&D rpg landscape than ever before. I wouldn't be surprised if we see significant bleed of players to other systems as 5e grows older.

[Deathtongue]

There is a healthier non-D&D rpg landscape than ever before.I'm not so sure about that. The cheese stands alone with 5E D&D. The only TTRPG that even came close to competing with 5E D&D's numbers was Pathfinder 1.0E, and we know how that ended up.

4E, 3E, and especially 2E D&D faced some extremely stiff competition. But 5E D&D? Shadowrun, Hero/Champion, World of Darkness, *-World, Pathfinder -- drops in a bucket compared to 5E.

If 5E D&D wanted to experiment with a new setting or rules or even genre (i.e. d20 Modern) this would be the time to do it. No one in the past 20 years is making or made, say, an Urban Fantasy or Sci-Fi or even a Low Fantasy TTRPG that my sister-in-law would be able to name. And while she's not super plugged into nerd culture, she does play FFXIV and watched Game of Thrones from start to finish and is the kind of person D&D will probably want to think about targeting in a few years if it continues to grow.

[Amdy_vill]

Personally, I feel the time is right for a slight upgrade that "fixes" a few things, like 3.5 did for 3. With them becoming far wiser it would be a wonderful opportunity to update some source material with current errata but the main reason I feel this way is because of Adventure League: there's core issues that need reworking to better facilitate organized play. Plus with how subclasses have panned out it would also give them another chance to update both main classes as well as older subclasses so they all fall inline: power creep has been mounting pretty rapidly. It would also give a chance to update some rules clarification in a more official manner than twitter. So what do you all think?

I think a 5.5 should be done with those optional enhancements and replaces. A new big Expansion with that add a bunch of new content and adds the enhancements and replaces system form the UA, I would also like those enhancements and replaces to be made public so people don't have to buy the new book to get the fixes. their are some baseline things that need to be fixed by i believe those can be fixed with errata

[HolyDraconus]

snipIts not as big as an edition change would be, hence the 5.5.


I'm not interested in buying a .5 edition, particularly one that is released primarily to make things better for AL. I most likely wouldn't buy it and it would stop be buying ongoing supplements.Everyone has their preferences. I respect that. I don't think that it should be focused solely on AL and I didn't think that having something that would make AL easier was a bad thing.


I think a 5.5 should be done with those optional enhancements and replaces. A new big Expansion with that add a bunch of new content and adds the enhancements and replaces system form the UA, I would also like those enhancements and replaces to be made public so people don't have to buy the new book to get the fixes. their are some baseline things that need to be fixed by i believe those can be fixed with errata I agree. Having the PHB have EVERY base class would be both a boon it would also have the side effect of making waves in AL. Having some of the well voted upon rules from U.A published in one spot would be nice too. These are a few things.

[Tawmis]

Personally, I would rather have official 5e books that address it.

Think the Rangers have been under powered by the release of new things; maybe a Player's Handbook II that basically reworks the original classes slightly.

That way you're not forced to buy a new PHB, DMG, MM, etc etc. I'd rather just see an official book revisit original content and spice it up.

So that way the DM can determine on their own if say - for example the PHBII can be used in their campaign, allowing players to adjust.

[Christew]

I'm not so sure about that. The cheese stands alone with 5E D&D. The only TTRPG that even came close to competing with 5E D&D's numbers was Pathfinder 1.0E, and we know how that ended up.

4E, 3E, and especially 2E D&D faced some extremely stiff competition. But 5E D&D? Shadowrun, Hero/Champion, World of Darkness, *-World, Pathfinder -- drops in a bucket compared to 5E.

If 5E D&D wanted to experiment with a new setting or rules or even genre (i.e. d20 Modern) this would be the time to do it. No one in the past 20 years is making or made, say, an Urban Fantasy or Sci-Fi or even a Low Fantasy TTRPG that my sister-in-law would be able to name. And while she's not super plugged into nerd culture, she does play FFXIV and watched Game of Thrones from start to finish and is the kind of person D&D will probably want to think about targeting in a few years if it continues to grow.
A fair point, but I think it can be viewed as evidence to the contrary. The "my sister" test passed muster back in the day because everyone even remotely in touch with the culture knew of the handful of systems that were popular enough to be economically viable. With electronic communication and a renaissance in indie gaming, I would be hard pressed to name even a fraction of the creative options out there as a full on gamer, let alone "my sister."

[HolyDraconus]

Personally, I would rather have official 5e books that address it.

Think the Rangers have been under powered by the release of new things; maybe a Player's Handbook II that basically reworks the original classes slightly.

That way you're not forced to buy a new PHB, DMG, MM, etc etc. I'd rather just see an official book revisit original content and spice it up.

So that way the DM can determine on their own if say - for example the PHBII can be used in their campaign, allowing players to adjust.

Two issues with that. With this proposal there would be 2 legal versions of the Ranger, which would add more confusion, not actually stream line, and it was stated some time ago that one of the workers on 5e will not print a "revised Ranger" in this PHB or as an errata. So if its instead a 5.5, that should return the ability to make those edits.

[Daithi]

I'd stick with 5e for now, and "fix" perceived issues by providing options in new books similar to XGtE. For example, I'd really like to see the Class Features Variants UA become official.

[Deathtongue]

A fair point, but I think it can be viewed as evidence to the contrary. The "my sister" test passed muster back in the day because everyone even remotely in touch with the culture knew of the handful of systems that were popular enough to be economically viable.The number of people who can name a Tabletop RPG other than D&D is tiny. I'm betting not one in thirty people who saw and enjoyed, say, the half-a-billion dollar grossing Bumblebee could do it. Which is not surprising. D&D making 50 million dollars in sales in 2017, one of its best years ever, is still chump change in the world of speculative fiction pop culture.

A new edition of D&D that literally alienated all of its current fans and was forced to pick up new fans from people who did things like play Final Fantasy XIV and watch the fantasy-themed episodes of South Park could be ten times as profitable as it currently did. Not saying that they should go this route, I'm just saying how small and weak our world is compared to a real money-maker fantasy franchise like Naruto or Game of Thrones.

[HolyDraconus]

The number of people who can name a Tabletop RPG other than D&D is tiny. I'm betting not one in thirty people who saw and enjoyed, say, the half-a-billion dollar grossing Bumblebee could do it. Which is not surprising. D&D making 50 million dollars in sales in 2017, one of its best years ever, is still chump change in the world of speculative fiction pop culture.

A new edition of D&D that literally alienated all of its current fans and was forced to pick up new fans from people who did things like play Final Fantasy XIV and watch the fantasy-themed episodes of South Park could be ten times as profitable as it currently did. Not saying that they should go this route, I'm just saying how small and weak our world is compared to a real money-maker fantasy franchise like Naruto or Game of Thrones.

Eh, profit wise, D&D doesn't outpace M:tG. In any form. In fact, its a given that the recent push for more Magic in DnD is to either get MORE players in Magic, or, which I think is most likely, get the "whales" in Magic to gain similar spending habits in DnD. As long as the materials stay low and stay rare, should I can say its just a possibility.. but when Theros is your next big book, as a campaign setting, mind you, I dunno.

[Ignimortis]

That said, if 6E D&D really wanted to capture a new market -- not just that of nerds who've read Harry Potter fanfiction and played Final Fantasy -- but of people like my mom who watched a couple of seasons of Three Kingdoms a decade ago and my stepbrother who hasn't played a video game more complex than Angry Birds in a similar time frame but really liked Ninja Gaiden 3 when it came out, they really would have to completely upend the edition because 5E wouldn't be sufficient. Whether that's a worthwhile endeavor is to be seen.

As someone who's played Final Fantasy extensively and loves the feel, 5e certainly doesn't capture my attention. Thing is, 5e is the closest to what people outside the hobby have always thought what D&D was, and thus it's way easier to get into even from a cultural standpoint.

[Damon_Tor]

I don't think we need 5.5.

I do, however, like many of the changes in the "alternate class features" UA and if they released those as free "errata" and published an updated PHB with those options baked right into the classes, I would probably buy it.

I would not, however, call that "5.5". To me, the extra half an edition requires either substantial general rules changes (as we saw in 3.5) or it requires a major shift in design philosophy (as we saw in "essentials" for 4th edition)

[MaxWilson]

You could still use 3.0 in 3.5 though, like the fullblade for example. And since every edition has been sharply different from the others why would you want a 6e when a 5.5 would do what it is you ask?

AD&D 1st edition and 2nd edition are very closely related, so closely you can read right out of the 1st edition books to run a 2nd edition adventure. I don't think that's been true of any of the other editions that claim to be descended from AD&D (3E, 3.5E, 4E, 5E), though of course it's true of many other D&D editions like OD&D vs. BECMI vs. AD&D.

[Hael]

I personally hope we stick with 5e for a few more years, so that people will get bored of it and transition out of it for good once 6e hits. It’s one of my least favorite editions other than the 4e abomination.

There is just zero depth to combat in this game, and it really is pretty limited for people who enjoy builds, spell combat and wargaming.

There are quite a few good aspects to the game, like bounded accuracy and the streamlined rules, but ultimately there’s just too many things sacrificed on the altar of balance (which I don’t value as much as fun)

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think we need 5.5. I agree. More published adventures, and a few more settings like Dark Sun and Planescape.

[diplomancer]

I personally hope we stick with 5e for a few more years, so that people will get bored of it and transition out of it for good once 6e hits. It’s one of my least favorite editions other than the 4e abomination.

There is just zero depth to combat in this game, and it really is pretty limited for people who enjoy builds, spell combat and wargaming.

There are quite a few good aspects to the game, like bounded accuracy and the streamlined rules, but ultimately there’s just too many things sacrificed on the altar of balance (which I don’t value as much as fun)

Can't compare with 3rd edition, as I've never played it; but builds-wise, 5th edition is far more complex than almost all of the TSR era (possible exception for the very late options of AD&D 2nd edition).

I'm playing a BECMI game right now with old friends, it's been fun, but the lack of complexity, both buildswise and combatwise, is painful.

A 3rd level PCs, 5th edition adventuring day against goblins and a merciless DM has been a very fun challenge.

[Joe the Rat]

I would really hope for something more akin to the original and 3.5 versions of Unearthed Arcana - an expansion of rules, options, and possibly classes.

Only without the sheer fudgery of Drow, Cavalier, and Barbarian - style "improvements." I'd also say without the original's propensity for binding problems, but WotC claimed that issue early on.

[Sigreid]

Everyone has their preferences. I respect that. I don't think that it should be focused solely on AL and I didn't think that having something that would make AL easier was a bad thing.



Yeah, I'm not in need of making things harder for AL, that's just not a reason for me to buy a new half edition and really, I don't have any issues with 5e that can't be patched live. I am in a different situation as I play with a single steady group that has been playing games together for decades.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I would really hope for something more akin to the original and 3.5 versions of Unearthed Arcana - an expansion of rules, options, and possibly classes.

Only without the sheer fudgery of Drow, Cavalier, and Barbarian - style "improvements." I'd also say without the original's propensity for binding problems, but WotC claimed that issue early on.

While 5e is *technically* the fifth edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, what if we had an Advanced 5e? Like, one with additional tools, rules, customization, and deeper simulationism that is still completely backwards compatible with Basic 5e?

I don't think there'd be as much wailing and gnashing of the teeth then.

EDIT: While I know this sounds almost the exact same as making a 5.5e, the difference is in support. Basic 5e doesn't go away, new material caters to both, and nothing gets invalidated. So, the way AD&D was to OD&D instead of the way 3.5 was to 3.0.

[Tes]

5.5e is not going to happen with the "Windows 10" approach for 5e.

But I'm all for a book with a big chunk of alternative rules designed to work as a set. A complete overhaul for all Feats to use in place of the existing once. Complete alternative for existing Classes (and Subclasses). Having another go at making every race a good or even just interesting choice, fixing Humans, Dragonborns etc.

The idea here is that the new Rules are still 5e, the existing rules aren't gonna be obsolete and we get to pick if we want to stick with the existing ones or the (hopefully mechanically better) "Alternative Ranger" etc.
Complete granularity isn't compatible with 5e and would be left for homebrew/houserules (as people already do). The new stuff needs to be coherent with itself and designed to be primarily used as a whole plug in.

With so many UAs and Subclasses out there already, I never saw people complaining about too many options. Too much content is only a problem when it's essential contents so you have to learn it all, it's too complicated to use or if it's a nerfbat for player options.
Adding a second official versions for self contained game modules like Classes, Races or Feats can be safely ignored or easily added.
Ofc there would likely be a clear winner, either the existing or the new version. But the other one would still not be obsolete, it's still official, the books they're in remain valid and buying the new book isn't mandatory, just more content. Official Class, Race or Feat Variants also don't require ongoing support. Same as their PHB versions they can be abandoned in their existing state after release.
It's a free line of content to sell book with and minimal effort required to design at this point in time. Honestly think we have something like this coming. Wild guess is WotC want it to come out together with something big like a new Class (hi Psion), which would definitely drive sales for everyone not interested in the Variant Rules.

This would also open up straight up new options. Like removing Extra Attack and Spellcasting from Rangers and readding it to the majority of Subclasses, while also enabling Beastmaster with stronger Features tied to his companion.
Removing Spellcasting or Extra Attack from base class in general opens up options for the more diverse subclasses of previous editions.
Moving Subclasses to level 2 would open up designspace for Rogue/Warrior 1/2 Casters on top of Spell less Rangers and Paladins (man they tried so many things with Rangers in UA...).

Might also open up to incorporate whatever Larian is changing for Baldurs Gate 1:1 into DnD. They arguably have a better track record at balancing and designing mechanically sound classes than the DnD team, I'd make use of that given the chance.
But heck what do I know.

[Nifft]

5.5e is not going to happen with the "Windows 10" approach for 5e.

5e is spying on me!?

[Waterdeep Merch]

5e is spying on me!?

What do you think those UA feedback thing are? Better delete your cookies.

[Tes]

5e is spying on me!?
You never found the lack of PDFs and need to sign into digital platforms suspicious? Don't tell me you didn't swipe your books for bugs...:smallbiggrin:

[HolyDraconus]

5.5e is not going to happen with the "Windows 10" approach for 5e.

But I'm all for a book with a big chunk of alternative rules designed to work as a set. A complete overhaul for all Feats to use in place of the existing once. Complete alternative for existing Classes (and Subclasses). Having another go at making every race a good or even just interesting choice, fixing Humans, Dragonborns etc.

The idea here is that the new Rules are still 5e, the existing rules aren't gonna be obsolete and we get to pick if we want to stick with the existing ones or the (hopefully mechanically better) "Alternative Ranger" etc.
Complete granularity isn't compatible with 5e and would be left for homebrew/houserules (as people already do). The new stuff needs to be coherent with itself and designed to be primarily used as a whole plug in.

With so many UAs and Subclasses out there already, I never saw people complaining about too many options. Too much content is only a problem when it's essential contents so you have to learn it all, it's too complicated to use or if it's a nerfbat for player options.
Adding a second official versions for self contained game modules like Classes, Races or Feats can be safely ignored or easily added.
Ofc there would likely be a clear winner, either the existing or the new version. But the other one would still not be obsolete, it's still official, the books they're in remain valid and buying the new book isn't mandatory, just more content. Official Class, Race or Feat Variants also don't require ongoing support. Same as their PHB versions they can be abandoned in their existing state after release.
It's a free line of content to sell book with and minimal effort required to design at this point in time. Honestly think we have something like this coming. Wild guess is WotC want it to come out together with something big like a new Class (hi Psion), which would definitely drive sales for everyone not interested in the Variant Rules.

This would also open up straight up new options. Like removing Extra Attack and Spellcasting from Rangers and readding it to the majority of Subclasses, while also enabling Beastmaster with stronger Features tied to his companion.
Removing Spellcasting or Extra Attack from base class in general opens up options for the more diverse subclasses of previous editions.
Moving Subclasses to level 2 would open up designspace for Rogue/Warrior 1/2 Casters on top of Spell less Rangers and Paladins (man they tried so many things with Rangers in UA...).

Might also open up to incorporate whatever Larian is changing for Baldurs Gate 1:1 into DnD. They arguably have a better track record at balancing and designing mechanically sound classes than the DnD team, I'd make use of that given the chance.
But heck what do I know.

This right here is what I was thinking. Doesn't have to completely push, just call it a Patch or Add On or even DLC lol.

[Tanarii]

3E 2000 (8 Years) }
3.5E 2003 [5 Years] } 14 years of 3rd edition, including the update, and the 6 years afterwards that it continued to be the mainstay of D&D players.
4E 2008 ( 6 Years) - Outlier due to how universally reviled it was. Shenanigans. 4e years aren't also 3e years.

Now if you want to count them as Pathfinder years instead go right ahead. :smallamused: